Hi, On Thursday 06 May 2010 04:15:44 ext Jorge Eduardo Candelaria wrote: > The following patches enable McBSP driver to be used along with the > audio driver in SDP4430 and other OMAP4 based boards. > > Changes from v1: > - Changed to correct IRQ lines. > - Check if rx_irq is defined, instead of checking if cpu is omap4 > > Jorge Eduardo Candelaria (2): > ARM: McBSP: Fix request for irq in OMAP4 > ARM: OMAP4: Add support for omap4 in McBSP driver > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mcbsp.c | 12 ++++-------- > arch/arm/plat-omap/mcbsp.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) Looks good with Jarkko's comment. However, I'd like to ask Tony, Liam, Jarkko, and Mark the following: Would it make sense to use the alsa tree for OMAP McBSP related patches, while keeping l-o in CC off course. If we have patches for mcbsp pending in l-o and in alsa tree, than we are going to have hard times to sort things out when they need to be merged. I'm asking this, because I will also have some patches for mcbsp, which will need change in arch/ and in sound/ as well. I know that taking patches to alsa tree for the arch/ is unorthodox, but it will ease up our life in a long run... What do you think? -- Péter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
